But we are talking about the difference between 0% an 1% - not a huge impact on the calculation.

And whilst I'm using math, I'm doing induction. Its inherently about estimation. My whole post is about estimation. There are some questions for which there are no precise mathematical answers to; this is where estimation comes in.

I guess I cannot be communicating clearly enough.

Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period. — Christoffer

You are being pedantic.

Outside of that, maybe you should actually invest time in investigating physics and discover that linear and circular isn't binary choices for explaining time — Christoffer

My argument first allows for the need to eternalism to be true as a prerequisite as well. So assuming time is a dimension, you claim it is of some shape that is NOT EITHER open (linear) or closed (circular). Prove it.

I've explained my reasons why I disagree with Christoffer above...

How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estimate? You need solid numbers for calculating the probability, but you use only an estimate, so your probability is based on variable estimates about something without any data in support of it. Are you unable to see how hollow this calculation is? — Christoffer

Well the impact of the 1% estimates on the total estimate is small so I felt an estimate was OK. We all know the probability of those three is very low so I choose 1% - did not think it would be controversial.

You cannot assume 50% because no data support either to have that number as a probability. You fail at basic math here. I can add any kind of fantasy concept and change the numbers: tesseract linearity, there... now you have 33,3333333333333% and your calculation fails. You have no data in support of your probability, your logic fails. — Christoffer

You cannot just make up anything for the topology of a dimension - it is either open (linear) or closed (circular) - there are no other options.

Again, I re-iterate the general principle, if there is no data for a sub-proposition, then assuming 50% is statistically the correct thing to do.

Its a fact that the most obvious arguments were documented first in human history. And Occam's Razor says to prefer obvious arguments. So only an idiot would ignore the old time philosophers. The first cause argument remains unchallenged.

Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation that made you end up at that exact number. — Christoffer

There is no calculation behind it; it is an estimate. In the absence of statistical support; estimates are the best one can do.

You need to explain how you calculated 50% in the first place and how you can apply the chances of circular time to be 50%, which has no data in support of that number.
You essentially need to explain how you can apply 50% to a concept that does not have any data in support of it. A boolean distribution cannot be used as a foundation for a probability of something to be true. That is so fundamentally un-scientific in its logic that it's absurd. — Christoffer

Eternalist time can have two possible topologies: linear or circular. I have no data on which is more prevalent, so it is statistically correct to assume 50%:

- Assuming 0% chance of circler would be an unwarranted bias towards linear.
- Assuming 100% chance of circler would be an unwarranted bias towards circular
- So we assume 50% - equidistant between the two extremes.

That is the statistically correct answer.

Here's a test for your appliance of 50% to circular time. Tell your calculation to a physicist actually working on time-related physics and see how they react to your concept. If they don't laugh at it I will be surprised. — Christoffer

It is not as far fetched as you think, see for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

Ok, so you will not commit to that. Will you commit to admitting that you do not know why they disagree with you? — DingoJones

I have to assume I have not articulated my arguments clearly enough I guess.

What's funny about survival? It is our primary directive after all.

1%

12,5%

Explain, now, or just stop trolling. — Christoffer

1% - is basically a rounded up estimate for 'I have virtually no belief in the possibility of' (religion, simulation or quantum immortality). I rounded up out of respect for these viewpoints I guess. Could of used 0% - it would not make much difference to the end result.

12.5% - I already explained the derivation here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/279748

What aspect in particular do you disagree with?

Which number(s) do you object to?

Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. — Christoffer

Which number(s) do you object to?

I understand philosophy involves argument and counter-argument. All you do is waffle.

SPECIFIC ON TOPIC COUNTER ARGUMENTS PLEASE

I already told you. Im not interested in that right now. Im trying to find out why you think everyone disagrees with you, and rejects what you are saying as nonsense.
Are you willing to commit, barring someones declaration of strong atheism, that your position is that ALL the people saying the exact same thing about your “probability” basis and its lack of validity lack the comprehension to grasp your argument? — DingoJones

Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question.

You started a troll thread based on percentages you made up in your head and you're pretending it's fortifying claims that have no foundation in reality — whollyrolling

I put some thought into the calculations 4 and 5 as explained above. I am not trolling. I thought that life after death is a subject that is of natural interest to all of us and was there anything we could do with it on the numbers side. I thought it was an interesting idea. Why all the hostility?

Can you be clear on exactly what you are disagreeing with please. That way it may be clearer if there is a misunderstanding.

I am afraid I do not have much of a web presence if thats what you mean. Not even a Facebook page.

I have presented a probability analysis in the OP for the basis of discussion. Please indicate which parts you regard as unsound.

A link to what?

I do not get you; this is a solipsism reference?

At least I have arguments.

NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN YOUR POSTS!

I think it is a mixture of people not understanding my argument and not liking my argument because it offends their atheist sensibilities.

Cheap shot. I think you are very closed minded.

I am an amateur astronomer. I am also an amateur philosopher. I have not had anything published but then I have not tried until recently.

Just saying my argument is not valid does not make it so.

NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN YOUR POST.

What I would appreciate is reasoned, specific, on topic counter arguments rather than waffle.

I disagree with your “math” and views on probability (specifically the way you conjure probability out of thin air, and do not understand the logic you refer to in your arguments).
So, im curious as to why you think I disagree. — DingoJones

I think you don't understand my argument. We have statistics for how 'thin air' behaves - the normal distribution. If you cannot assign a probability to a specific boolean proposition because you have no data - what do you do? - you use a 50%/50% estimate in line with the normal distribution.

What parts of my math do you disagree with?

I am working on several papers. I find it helpful to bounce my ideas off people. And (some) people seem interested anyway. So what is the problem with that?

So, anyway, what else do you enjoy doing in your spare time besides trolling this philosophy forum? You're a fan of St. Thomas Retardus, I gather. — S

I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live.

The definition of a troll is someone who makes offensive posts. My posts are not offensive, unless it is your atheist sensibilities that are offended?

Ok, well Im not a strong atheist and I have no problems with where your views lead.
So what is your explanation for me? Why do you think I disagree with you, since its not the reasons you stated? — DingoJones

Exactly what are you disagreeing with - can you be specific please.

"So you admit your axiomatical system of the world includes 'magic can happen'?
— Devans99

Yes, I said that with absolute sincerity. You accurately represented the argument I never provided. — S

You are going against the scientific method. You are condemned to ever live in darkness. You might as well sign up for a religion with that axiom.

I think people reject my ideas because they are uncomfortable with where they lead.

There is no logical basis for strong atheism for example and my ideas on probability make that quite clear. So it tends to be a certain sort of person who disagrees with me (strong atheists for example).

So you admit your axiomatical system of the world includes 'magic can happen'?

You are not going to be able to reason much about the world with such an axiom... it invalidates all possible conclusions.

You have something wrong with your logic if you doubt a first cause. Its like you've got an axiom in there somewhere equivalent to 'sure magic can happen'.

Valid counterarguments to what? You have not provided any arguments.

Going around in circles with you again with regard to your failed logic — S

Yes I'm sorry, I'm not using S-Logic.

Everything else is balderdash. — Terrapin Station

I think you will find that you do probability calculations all the time. Should I get on that plane? The last one did not crash. That sort of thing. You can use probability for anything - look at the vast range of things you can bet on.

A more specific link.



Back on topic, there is the possibility that life is but a dream and dying is equivalent to waking up. It has the advantage of not needing any messy transmigration of the soul or anything. Worth a couple more percentage points?

I do modify my stance if someone comes up with a valid counter argument.

Link to an example of where I have ignored a valid counter argument

Then why are you here? — Christoffer

Same could be asked of you

How would you explain the results of the quantum eraser experiment if it is not past real eternalism?

How would you explain a start of time with presentism? - It is impossible.

Why does 'now' not feature in the laws of physics?

Try to keep an open mind please...

Again, no counter argument. You can't just say its a poor argument and not say why. This is a philosophy forum.

Typical. No counter arguments. Please, for example, point out what you think 'I just made up in my head'.